PPS - private parking solutions - Bowman Sheriff, Bath St, Nottingham, NG1 1BZ

Umkomaas

usernamenotfound said:

Here is Safestore's reply. It sounds like a lie to me, to avoid culpability. Any thoughts on how to counter this?

Good Afternoon,

I spoke with the store and they said that if you parked in our car park you wouldn’t of been charged like with all of our stores. However If you were on the opposite side of the road in the public parking you would have been charged or in the back outside of our car park you would have been but that land is owed by BT. I would maybe try and contact them as it has nothing to do with us unfortunately.

Kind Regards,

Kelly Allen

Customer Service Advisor

Safestore

Semi-literate masterpiece! 🤦‍♂️ Nowhere further to go with Kelly. 

Follow the standard plan - initial appeal, then POPLA if you wish, ignore any debt collector letters, defend any court claim. 

Coupon-mad

Or reply and tell her she is wrong and show her the photos proving this is the Safestore car park. Tell her not to insult you with semi-literate untruths (there being no such phrase as "wouldn't of") and to pass this formal complaint to her Manager for a proper investigation.

usernamenotfound

How about something like this?

Good Afternoon,

From the photos you have attached, and even from a quick google street view search, it clearly shows that this is safestore's car park.

You have also attached signage from Private Parking Solutions, which provides proof that Safestore is working in conjunction with PPS.

Please do not insult me with these semi-literate untruths, and pass this formal complaint onto your manager for a proper investigation.

Regards,

usernamenotfound

Safestore's response (I don't see any point in contacting BT, will they actually do anything to resolve this?):

Good Afternoon Wayne,

The land that you have pictured from google is not our land and is owned by BT.

All our car parks are free to use for our customers.

Our car park is behind the gated entrance anything before this is BT`s property

In order for you to find a resolution I would suggest contacting BT

We cannot help any further on this matter as the land is not owned by us and we also do not have any dealings with Private Parking Solutions.

 

Kind Regards

Sean Mahon

Store Manager

usernamenotfound

Also PPS has replied with this attached letter, which I'm assuming is their usual spiel

I will start writing my POPLA appeal, but if there's anything outstanding from their letter that I can use (on top of the standard POPLA template), that would be much appreciated:

KeithP

How ridiculous is that letter.
Especially this bit where they quote from a sign...

I find it truly amazing that they think a sign that says NO PARKING AT ANY TIME, and then repeats that order by stating STRICTLY NO PARKING, can in any way form the basis of a contract to park.

Parking is forbidden - pure and simple. There is no offer to park.

Umkomaas

KeithP said:

How ridiculous is that letter.
Especially this bit where they quote from a sign...

I find it truly amazing that they think a sign that says NO PARKING AT ANY TIME, and then repeats that order by stating STRICTLY NO PARKING, can in any way form the basis of a contract to park.

Parking is forbidden - pure and simple. There is no offer to park.

...... so as it cannot therefore be a parking charge emanating from a contract, it must be a penalty. No private organisation can issue/charge a penalty.  Round and round that circle we go again!  Include it in your POPLA appeal and let PPS have to rebut that in their evidence to POPLA. However, don't expect POPLA to understand that, let alone concur!. If PPS don't attempt to rebut it, something to go back to POPLA on .... in due course.

Let see what PPS and POPLA make of that.

usernamenotfound

Hi All,

Could you kindly let me know your thoughts on my first draft please?
I had 4 points in the previous POPLA appeal I had written, but had to take out the "NTK does not comply with PoF 2012 Act" point, as their NTK does has a paragraph regarding keeper liability with the correct wording. If I understand correctly, that point only applies if they miss out keeper liability in their NTK?
I will also include the point above from @KeithP and @Umkomaas as my last point. So I will be back to 4 points for my final draft.

usernamenotfound

Dear POPLA,
Regarding POPLA CODE: (POPLA CODE),
On the (DATE), Private Parking Solutions Ltd. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the vehicle (VEHICLE REG) had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for the following alleged contravention: "Failed to make a valid payment"

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

1) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.
2) Private Parking Solutions Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass.
3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and therefore are insufficient to form any contract with a driver.


1) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
At no point have Private Parking Solutions Ltd provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle.
In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

“Understanding keeper liability:

There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

2) Private Parking Solutions Ltd lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

It is suggested that Private Parking Solutions Ltd does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Private Parking Solutions Ltd be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver

The BPA Code of Practice clearly states that:

18.1 “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.

Bearing this in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Private Parking Solutions Ltd. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.

As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case. In this case, which stated specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court itself on twitter, keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

(IMAGE OF UKSUPREMECOURT TWEET)

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:
(IMAGE OF PARKINGEYE SIGN)
This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed. Here, the signs are sporadically and poorly placed – particularly to a driver entering the site – which is part of the main roadway. In fact, some signs are obscured and hidden in some areas with large areas of the car park without visible signs. The signs are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.
In addition, inconsistent content, inconsistent aesthetic and poor positioning of signs means that the operator of a vehicle could easily have been misled by the terms and conditions of one sign whilst being under the impression all terms had been communicated, only for another sign elsewhere on the site to have further terms and conditions.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on the majority of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operator’s signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

(IMAGE OF FONT SIZES)

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

(IMAGE OF LETTER VISIBILITY CHART)

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.”

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed, in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact! 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106'! about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them. This judgment is an example of a binding case law from the Court of Appeal offers further support for my argument:

(LINK TO VINE V LONDON COURT CASE)

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

Based on these points, it is believed that Private Parking Solutions Ltd are not complying with the BPA Code of Practice with regard to position, clarity of terms and conditions and driver safety. Therefore, without clear, compliant signs there was no contract established and therefore no breach of that alleged contract either. Therefore, request that Private Parking Solutions Ltd be required to provide strict proof of exactly where the car entered the car park, where the car was parked (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective upon entering and parking. Equally, I request that they show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up, also on the date, time and lighting condition of the alleged event. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read safely from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this. In addition to this, it is requested that any neighbouring signs to the entrance and vehicle parking location to demonstrate the consistency of signage and how terms and conditions could not be misinterpreted or the driver misinformed.

In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by Private Parking Solutions Ltd is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from Private Parking Solutions Ltd.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards.

Umkomaas

Skim read:

Point 1) is irrelevant if the NtK is PoFA compliant.

Then ....

You've missed the point that the signage offers the driver nothing, so cannot possibly form a contract (for the driver to breach). The charge can only therefore be a penalty (you must use that word) which only an authority such as a local council or the police can issue. POPLA must therefore find in your favour (those are words to put in your appeal too).